Last Updated: May 2026
There is a lingering misconception among business leaders that reputation can be controlled through branding, messaging, and selectively curated leadership moments. It can’t. Crises test executive reputation far more brutally than branding does. During normal times, most companies can seem disciplined. Most leaders can seem in control. Most value statements seem believable. But easy times don’t reveal true character. Pressure does. A crisis. A public misstep. A lawsuit. An operational breakdown. An unexpected financial hit. Things that raise the stakes and test whether the leadership is just playing a part or courageously showing up.
Leadership reputation and reputation management is not some superficial assets you can polish to keep on shelves. When a leader fumbles during a moment of pressure, reputational damage doesn’t stop with bad press. It reverberates through customer sentiment, employee morale, investor confidence, regulatory interest, and media narrative. If you’re a leader who thinks you might not be ready for that level of scrutiny, think again. Stakeholders are already scrutinising you. Leadership decisions don’t happen in a vacuum. “Stakeholders filter every action through their own expectations and experiences.” says Cambridge University research. Who’s watching? Everyone is. The question is what they are taking notice of.
The media doesn’t control reputation, but can catalyse it
During stable times, leaders can get away with believing that reputation is theirs to manage through communications. When the stakes are raised, that privilege disappears. Many factors earn and shape a leader’s reputation: through media coverage, yes, but also stakeholder experience, and the accrued goodwill (or lack thereof) of past actions. Media attention doesn’t control reputation, but it can catalyse reputation in positive or negative directions. The media serves as an interpreter, turning internal news into something the public can understand, hence why media perception management and crisis reputation management matter. A technically accurate statement can damage reputation if it sounds tone deaf or protective of the wrong people.
But the media isn’t the only audience. Employees wonder if life inside the organisation measures up to promises they’ve been hearing for years. Customers question whether they’re cared for or controlled. Reputational risk in crisis reputation management, investors worry about whether a short-term decision may have sacrificed long-term trust. Regulators decide if this incident is symptomatic of a larger problem.
Put simply, when reputations are on the line, most stakeholders aren’t looking at a single event. They’re interpreting it. And people don’t interpret events in a vacuum. Someone with a history of walking the talk will likely be given the benefit of the doubt at least for a time. Someone who has been opaque, disconnected, or checked their integrity at the door will see that crisis interpreted more negatively.
Scrutiny is cumulative
People don’t care about this specific incident. They care about this specific incident committed by this specific leader. A leader’s reputation management during controversy often offers the best signal of their competence. Stakeholders judge leadership through credibility, timeliness, tone of voice, and decision-making. That’s why reputations are won and lost not in keynote addresses or marketing materials, but in moments when leaders have to make tough decisions with incomplete information, high-profile outcomes, and competing constituencies. This is why leadership behaviour under pressure matters so much.
The role of consistency
Lots of people think about consistency as meaning “the same thing over and over”. That’s not what I mean by consistency. It means alignment congruency. Leaders don’t need to say the same thing every time. Their standards, judgment, and values should be identifiable when situations change. Stakeholders are more forgiving when decisions are difficult if they know how a leader will behave. They might not agree with the decision, but they will want to recognise the thinking and trust the pattern.
McKinsey’s report on effective communication explains how inconsistency and incoherence send confusing messages, create anxiety, and erode trust, while consistent behaviour builds familiarity and commitment. Inconsistent behaviour creates alienation and saps confidence in management.”The best way I’ve heard someone phrase reputation is that it’s not built by spectacular good behaviour in the spotlight. It’s built by everyone knowing what kind of standard to expect when the bright lights are turned on you.
This matters when leaders need to change course. Markets evolve. Crises force compromises. Sometimes, the strategy needs to change dramatically. But even a significant pivot can be understood if a leader is clear about why it’s necessary, what principle is being served, and how the sacrifice is shared. That is the essence of stakeholder trust leadership. Absent that kind of consistency, stakeholders start interpreting each decision through the worst lens. They begin to wonder who or what leaders are really serving.
When actions are put under the microscope
Let’s talk about a few cases showing how crisis communication strategy affects executive reputation. Examples of companies and leaders whose actions faced real-world scrutiny:
Qantas reputational turbulence hits
Australia’s national airline is a good corporate example of how scrutiny can build slowly and erupt quickly. A report by ACCC noted that Qantas CEO Alan Joyce would retire early due to bad press after the Australian consumer watchdog filed legal action against the airline for allegedly selling tickets to thousands of cancelled flights. Qantas was ordered to pay A$100 million in penalties. This incident happened on the back of mounting criticism over how customers were treated, flight refunds, and the general perception that the airline put commercial interests over trust.
What’s notable here is not that a single controversy damaged the brand. It’s those years of news stories and decisions that had started to shift how people viewed Qantas. Suddenly, issues that may have been excusable or forgettable were now part of a larger pattern. Leadership wasn’t evaluated on a play-to-play basis. It was evaluated against a prevailing narrative.
Airbnb showed heart through clarity
Airbnb CEO Brian Chesky provides one of the better examples of leadership under pressure. When communicating Airbnb’s 2020 layoffs to staff, Chesky was candid about the gravity of the situation. He stated that travel had “essentially shut down”, “revenue is expected to be less than half of last year”, and that approximately 1,900 employees would be let go. He also communicated the principles he and the leadership team were considering, such as being faithful to the long-term strategy and providing severance, health care, equity, and career support. This is a great example of how to manage reputation in a crisis; it wasn’t going to make anyone happy, but it did send an important signal: that employees were treated with respect.
In a difficult situation, Chesky showed that commercial decisions and humane leadership are not mutually exclusive. Scrutiny doesn’t just test how decisively you lead. It tests if you can lead authoritatively while still being human.
BP said the wrong thing about what mattered most
When it comes to words inadvertently encapsulating a brand crisis, few examples top BP CEO Tony Hayward’s response to the Gulf Coast oil spill. A Reuters’ article mentioned Hayward’s apology for saying he wanted “my life back” while hundreds of millions of gallons of oil were leaking into the Gulf of Mexico. Eleven workers were killed as a result of the spill. Despite his apology, he had already suffered for his words, as they put the focus of the crisis on him. Leaders often think scrutiny is only about intentions. In reality, scrutiny is also about what your behaviour says about you.
Johnson & Johnson put values into practice
The historical Tylenol poisoning is another great example of a crisis, not because it was handled perfectly, but because it shows how value-informed leadership can be expected to behave under pressure. Multiple accounts reveal how Johnson & Johnson pulled roughly 31 million bottles off the shelves in response to the 1982 cyanide poisonings. Its response not only resolved the crisis but set new standards for packaging integrity.
The useful lesson from this story is consistent credibility. Someone examining their actions didn’t have to speculate about whether safety was their priority. Everyone could see it.
What leaders should take from this
Pressure doesn’t break a reputation; in fact, it is necessary to build a reputation. Leadership reputation architecture and reputation management shouldn’t start with a content plan. It should start with behaviour and governance. When leaders are under pressure, stakeholders quickly form opinions on four things: if you understand the gravity of the situation; if you react in a way that shows respect for those impacted; if you do what you say you will do; and if they can still recognise the ‘true you’ when things get tough. These are the questions at the heart of crisis reputation management and reputation management during controversy.
Public scrutiny is unforgiving. Many reputation crises are not failures of communication, in the traditional sense. They’re failures of judgment that are then amplified by communication. Stakeholders don’t expect leaders to be perfect. But they do expect competence, calmness, and accountability. For entrepreneurs, efficient leadership under pressure means being able to recognise that personal reputation and corporate reputation are often intertwined.
Reputation Is Ultimately Measured Through Responsibility
A founder’s voice can agitate employees, scare away customers or reassure them all within a matter of hours. Ultimately, reputations are defined less by what leaders say than by how they listen, how they stand up for those who need a voice, and how they behave when taking responsibility would be harder than taking the blame.
Executive Briefing Notes (Key Questions Answered)
What is Authority Personal Branding™?
It is the deliberate structuring of how leadership is perceived, particularly under scrutiny, where reputation is tested in real time.
How is it different from personal branding?
Personal branding focuses on ‘surface level’ expression. Authority Personal Branding™ focuses on interpretation — how actions and communication are judged by others.
How are reputations actually judged?
Not by intention, but by consistency, clarity, and behaviour under pressure. Perception is formed quickly and often subconsciously.
Who is this approach for?
Leaders accountable to boards, investors, or public scrutiny, where trust must be maintained continuously.
How long does it take to build authority?
Authority is built gradually, but can be lost quickly. Structured alignment reduces this risk significantly.
Request Your Authority Positioning Session
Refined through decades of advisory work at Image Group International.
For leaders whose reputation must hold under scrutiny.
Request Your Authority Personal Branding™ Session
Research Foundations
- Cambridge University – Stakeholder perceptions in organizational crisis management: exploring alternative configurations
- McKinsey & Company leadership communication studies
- ACCC and Qantas CEO Alan Joyce
- Airbnb’s CEO Brian Chesky and 2020 layoffs
- Image Group International – Reputation Risk Patterns in High-Stakes Leadership (2026)
Author:
Jon Michail is the Founder and Group CEO of Image Group International, a global advisory firm specialising in Authority Personal Branding™, reputation architecture, and leadership positioning.
With more than three decades of experience, Jon has advised chief executives, entrepreneurs, and public figures on building high-trust reputations in complex, high-stakes environments. His work focuses on aligning identity, behaviour, and perception ensuring leaders are not just visible, but respected and chosen when it matters most.
A best-selling author and a leader of the Forbes Coaches Council, Jon’s insights sit at the intersection of reputation, authority, and leadership influence. His approach is grounded in real-world application, combining strategic clarity with behavioural alignment to build authority that endures.